There’s probably no God…
| January 8, 2009 | Posted by William Dembski under Atheism |
This just in from RichardDawkins.net:
Today, thanks to many Cif readers, the overall total raised for the Atheist Bus Campaign stands at a truly overwhelming £135,000, breaking our original target of £5,500 by over 2400%. Given this unexpected amount, I’m very excited to tell you that 800 buses – instead of the 30 we were initially aiming for – are now rolling out across the UK with the slogan, “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life”, in locations all over England, Scotland and Wales, including Manchester, Edinburgh, Glasgow, York, Cardiff, Devon, Leeds, Bristol and Aberdeen.
Three questions:
(1) What exactly is the probability that there is no God?
(2) In times past the state was concerned that people believe in God because they saw faith as curbing human wickedness (God holds us accountable for our actions and will see that in the end justice is served–so watch what you do). Wouldn’t it therefore be more honest for the atheists to put up the slogan: “There probably is no God. Now watch your back because no one else is.”
(3) Is it a coincidence that the world’s leading atheist is also a pathological Darwinist?
135 Responses to There’s probably no God…
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Gill, I have come to believe that atheism is not an intellectual position at all. It is more like a cry of wrath. Why else would atheists discount the scienfitic evidence for design and seek out extravagant explanations such as “infinite multiple universes.” For that matter, why else would they discount reason’s first principles and assume that something can come from nothing?
StephenB
Believing in God just doesn’t solve the problem of meaning for me. How do I know I am not just an accident in an intelligently designed universe?
The fact that a universe with no teleological origin can have no meaning is also not a reason to start believing in God. Just choosing to believe won’t make God pop into existence if it doesn’t already exist.
StephenB said,
Isn’t it possible (and perhaps even advisable)to accept the evidence for design while leaving theism out of it? Don’t theists believe that something can come from nothing?
—–Earvin: “The point was that it seems possible to me for an atheist to act altruistically (i.e., without concern for one’s own reward)while your entire thesis seems to be that you are “good” out of a deliberate effort to overcome your own intrinsic evilness, and thus please God. That’s the antithesis of altruism.”
Earvin, I can only reiterate that I have not taken up that topic. I will, however, offer a brief observation. An atheist can certainly love his children, even though he doesn’t acknowledge any such an immaterial reality as love exists. That is just one of his many contradictions. To be sure, he can also act unselfishly, but that is because he is a different kind of creature than he thinks he is. A mere collection of clanging molecules can’t love; only a non-material soul can do that. Equally important, the atheist cannot provide any rational justification for his altruistic behavior, nor can he hope that, in the end, it will make any difference. If he thinks it through, he can’t be happy about that.
—-Laminar: Just choosing to believe won’t make God pop into existence if it doesn’t already exist.”
I agree. One of mankinds silliest statments came from Voltaire who said, “If God didn’t exist, mankind would have had to invent him.” So, I am with you on that one.
The good news is, though, that both science and philosophy testify to the existence of a Creator. Also, it appears that this same creator left clues about his existence and his wisdom. Apparently, he wanted to be found and acknowledged as creator.
Did most atheists go to aetheist schools or to schools slack on some truth that “Atheist” said everything is a lie?Lost his thinking.
I can’t support this with research of any sort, but I think it’s probably true: regarding daily life and behavior, and overall “happiness,” there is no significant difference between theists and atheists. So, my questions for you all: if I’m right, what are the implications for this whole discussion; and if I’m wrong, is there any data that shows it?
StephenB,
A great post but I want to add something that I find of value from Sartre. One of the things that I found useful was that we are essentially defined but what we choose. We have choices all the time and even the prisoner chained to the wall in a dungeon can make choices (how he reacts to his guards and his situation for example) and those choice will define him. So this philosophy which is not necessarily atheistic is something I found valuable.
Jerry, I agree again. Existentialists have said some truly profound things, and sometimes that “in your face” attitude about the power of will can create much good in its own context. As is usually the case, a bad philosophy often consists of taking a good thing and running to far with it. We shouldn’t lose track of that good thing, which is the power of the will. In fact, our current culture is flawed to the extent that it denies the power of self-control and will power, reducing all moral problems to medical problems. We could use a little bit more of that element of the existential spirit, if you get my drift.
“Pubdef–So, my questions for you all: if I’m right, what are the implications for this whole discussion; and if I’m wrong, is there any data that shows it?”
As far as I can tell your position is that there is “probably” no God and methinks that is pretty weasely.
There probably is a God, now stop worrying and enjoy your life.
For real enjoyment, not momentary and course enjoyment, comes from communion and relationship with God. Like CS Lewis said, “We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered to us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.”
tribune7 — if you had no intention of addressing my questions, why did you bother posting? My post was about the difference, if any, between theists and atheists, not the substance of their philosophical differences. I raised it because so much of the posting on this thread presumes that they are very different.
Stephen:
This is precisely correct. I play keyboards with the worship team at our church. Before each service the worship team congregates and prays. During one such congregation I told a very wise man about my former antipathy to Christianity. He said, “You didn’t just dislike Christianity, you wanted to hunt it down and kill it.” This rang so true, and I must admit that to this day I have guilt feelings about trying to hunt down and kill that to which I ultimately owe everything.
My consolation is Romans 8:28.
Gil Dodgen @ 105
No problem, I guessed that what was what you meant. Both sides are prone to jeering at the opposition. It’s par for the course in a team sport like ID v Darwinism.
StephenB @ 110
Can there be any value without a ‘valuer’? Isn’t it more that value, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder? We value platinum or diamonds because of their relative scarcity whereas lead or quartz crystal are worth less to us because they are more commonplace. But, if we were not here, could any of it be said to have any value. In a sense, it is all relative. For example, I remember in one of C M Kornbluth’s science-fiction novels rings made of oak were worn as a sign of wealth because, in the future setting of the story, wood had become so scarce it was worth more than gold. Does anyone doubt that is quite possible?
In the case of your little parable the woman might still value the piece of glass if she believed it was give as a token of genuine love for that reason. However, if she discovered that not only was it a relatively worthless piece of glass but it was given in a cynical attempt to buy her favors then she would certainly resent being lied to by the donor on both counts.
Solipsism may be an intriguing philosphical standpoint but I doubt that there are any, on either side, who do not believe that there is an objective reality out there. But you are right in that most atheists believe that, if this life is all there is and all we can expect, then it makes sense to make the best of what we have.
And making the best of what we have does not necessarily mean indulging in a lifelong orgy of sex, drugs and rock’n'roll, although I don’t doubt that there a few who think that’s an attractive prospect. There are also many who would take pleasure in composing, playing or just listening to music or reading and writing poetry or playing sports or travelling the world to experience its diversity or fashioning things with their hands or watching endless re-runs of Star Trek. These are all morally unobjectionable pursuits which, of course, being lucky enough to live in a relatively affluent and free Western society we have the opportunity to indulge in. We do not have to spend every waking minute just struggling to survive or being told what we can think, say, eat or do by political or religious masters.
Agnostics or atheists, of course, would argue that is just what religion tries to do. It emerged, in part, precisely because it offered an comforting alternative to the terrifying prospect of a hopeless and Godless universe. It is plainly much more appealing but that doesn’t necessarily make it true. And, yes, the atheist view is bleak but, if that is really the truth, isn’t it better to face it rather than pretend it doesn’t exist?
If this life is all we have, if something is better than nothing, then to throw it away before we have to makes no sense. Of course, if a life has become intolerable for some reason then ending it may be preferable to that individual. Otherwise, suicide is silly, Camus notwithstanding.